Mick Dennis

Purple is the past master on shares and accounts, and I might have missed some of his replies & comments here but… The motions for the meeting do not talk about issuing, only about allocating these shares. They are ordinary shares, with a nominal value of £194,512: so 194,512 ordinary £1 shares. That’s equivalent to 56% of the total shareholding of directors listed in the most recent accounts. The motions specify that permission to allocate these shares begins at the 13 Feb meeting and expires on 28 Feb. So whatever is afoot has been agreed and is in hand; it’s not some sort of public offer. The club’s statement says the allocation is ‘to strengthen its financial sustainability by reducing the need for borrowings’. But £194K wouldn’t make a dent in the borrowings, so it must be the case that the shares allocation will facilitate someone putting in a substantial sum. Sam Samuel is reporting (on Pink Un) that this is about new shares. I’m not sure that’s right.

Hi purple,As an aside, I always read your posts with interest. Your grasp of the finances is often enlightening.On this matter:Of course it''s true that the idea of a director of football or a sporting director has been around a long time. Other clubs have been going down that route for a very long time, and some have given up and returned to the all-powerful chief exec model. I don''t know of Comolli''s conversation with Ed Balls, but clearly at that stage Balls and Co discounted the advice.  It was the departure of Moxey, so soon after the head-hunting process  — together with the admiration by then of Steve Stone and feedback from senior staff — that persuaded most (although not all) of the board that the club should be rearranged into two "silos". I am happy to concede that the idea wasn''t, strictly speaking, born then; perhaps you''ll accept ''nutured and allowed to mature''.It might, indeed, seem obvious with hindsight, but it was such a dramatic change that there were some who were wary. Delia made up her mind though, went against her usual policy of seeking unanimous consent, and said, "This is what we''re doing".The point of my MFW piece was merely that, having seen how the relationship between Stone and Webber (and their "silos") has developed, and watching a happy hierachy interacting with fans, I felt bouyed and wanted to pass that on.On the MFW site, some have commented that they''d rather have success on the field than approachable, open heads of the organisation. But it''s not an either/or.

Greetings.I''m not going to get into a long debate with anyone in this thread, but perhaps I can clear up a few things.1) Yep, I''m friendly with the majority share-holders. I''m not going to apologise for that. The friendship started because they spotted a lot of Norwich references in stuff I used to write when I was an executive of the (London) Evening Standard.Does that friendship make me biased? Of course. They''ve shown me great personal kindness.But I''ve never hidden the fact that I like them personally. And the point is I am not writing some sort of independent inquiry or tablets of stone. Like everyone else who blogs on MFW, I start with a viewpoint, which, in my case, everyone knows.Very many, including Rob Butler, refer to me as the club''s PR, or similar. But that infers that I have briefings and use them to spin a particular key message or messages. I don''t. For example, I haven''t spoken to anyone at the club about the last transfer window.Some choose to discount everything I write or broadcast because of my firendships. That is their perogative. It strikes me as a much sillier bias. But hey-ho!2) My friendships are not all I bring to the table. I spent four decades involved in sports journalism, watched football in a professional capacity on four continents and had to understand the workings of many other clubs. I have friends on other boards, and talk regularly to football folk who really are ''in the know''. Sorry to brag about all that, but it provides some more context to what I write or broadcast (and seeing how other clubs'' fans respond to situations I know about is what keeps me sane when supporters of our club go into meltdown!).3)  Most, if not all, of the information in yesterday''s MFW article has been in the public domain before. That''s true. I just pulled it together in one place to provide what I hope is a rounded picture of the current financial situation at our club. In particular, it was a response to a blog on the same site which seemed not to understand the reason we had to make a profit at one time and the truth about one of those years of profit. It was also response to the latest outpourtings of tosh about lack of ambition, because it was probably showing more ambition than prudence in January that left us short of funds for this last window.That''s what I meant by being less well-placed than in 2014, by the way. I meant less well-placed financially. I agree that our squad is probably better stocked than then, with the one glaring difference being a shortage of striking options.Some bits might be new. I am not sure that the specific dangers of the Cullum bid have been outlined before. I don''t recall telling my Sullivan story. But I am incredibly old now, so it''s possible I''ve started repeating myself.4) Finally, the reference to Matt Holland in the MFW piece is accurate. A £4.5m deal was done for him to leave but he turned it down and stayed on wages that they couldn''t afford. There were other debts, of course, but selling MH would have helped them keep going. My reason for mentioning it is that too many folk completely ignore ongoing commitment to wages when they think about a club''s finances.That''s it. I''m sure some will now pick this post to pieces and accuse me of all sorts of things. But, if you''d rather, I''m always happy to talk face-to-face to anyone who supports the same club as me and I''m at nearly every game. I''ve got to dash away at the end tonight though: more grandchildren due tomorrow. More green and yellow stuff to buy in the weeks ahead!

In fairness to Wes, he opted to stick with us when we dropped into League One (contrary to what is suggested in this thread). After that dreadful afternoon at Charlton, Gunny asked them all who was ready to stay and fight. Wes was. He had to force his way into Lambert''s plans. I think the tragedy, for Wes and the team, is that he''d just done that -- forced his way into the side -- under CH when Villa''s offer of a longer contract ''turned his head''. My ideal resolution would be for him to stay and play. He''s the last survivor of the pre-Lambert era and, as such, has been part of the extraordinary narrative of our club through the most amazing period any of us will live through. He can''t play with ''2 up'', in my view, but would be an incisive alternative to the RVW role in the 4-4-1-1 in the first half v Hull.

... could have run on.... I''ve really got to go now. Life beckons.

OK. That was a 140 character summary. I knew they weren''t sacking Tues night or Weds, as some assumed or hoped, after Craven (good word) Cottage. Their position, as I understand it, is as elaborated in my post on this thread. And lest anyone doubts, I fervently hope we win tomorrow and v Newcastle and that CH survives, thrives and stays for a decade. That might be a minority view, I concede. I am learning the hard way that Tweets taken out of context can be misleading! In answer to a tweet saying the atmosphere v Hull might be fraught, I Tweeted: "I agree fans prob" or some such, in the context of the conversation. Before I knew it, there was a storm of protest saying I was blaming the fans for our current lack of wins. I''m not that brave or daft, although I did think someone could have Rubin last Sat at Goodison and closed down fracking Gareth Barry.

Greetings. Thanks to those on here kind enough to point out that I am a fan. My wife and I have home and away season tickets. Home games are a 260 mile round trip. My dad was from Norfolk. I hurt as much as anybody when results and performances are poor. I have a loose arrangement with the Express which allows me to watch Norwich in return for going anywhere they like on the Sunday or Monday. How much do I know? Well, when the Birmingham Mail, the Daily Mirror, the Daily Telegraph and others were saying Villa had bid £1.5m for Wes, that he had handed in a transfer request and had told team-mates that he would never play for City, I tweeted and wrote in the Express that there had been no written request, the bid was £750k, and City would not sell him. When I do KNOW something, I state it as fact. Otherwise I say that I think or believe stuff. And sometimes things change. So when asked on talkSPORT about signings, I said I thought CH would seek loan signings from Spurs. In fact, I knew from Spurs that he wanted Andros Townsend. It didn''t happen, and the player then bloomed rather well at WHL. I have some good sources, but I am also,told stuff on a confidential basis sometimes and would never break a confidence. I haven''t said City won''t sack CH. I''ve said they want him to succeed, will support him, and believe that change mid-season can be very damaging. I can''t predict the future, though. I can''t enter into a debate here about CH or RVW or Tom Cobley because I have a lot of work to do and a life to live. But I will always talk to any fellow Yellow Army members at games, if they don''t swear at me or my wife -- as has happened. I have a different perspective to some because for four decades I''ve been working closely with other clubs too. I know that there are currently 10 PL clubs who all fear relegation, doubt their manager and say there''s no commitment, lost the dressing room etc. I was at Villa on Monday and heard their fans saying all of that. Finally, I hope that we all realise that we have more in common than divides us. I certainly understand why many fans have had enough, and they are entitled to that view. I salute the 1500 who went to Fulham and tried to keep singing and chanting on a horrid night. I was a boardroom guest that night. I don''t apologise for having a posh seat when offered. But I didn''t have champagne. I was driving. My wife had it though! OTBC

Perhaps I can help with this one, since I have to drive to WHL a lot during the season. It is easily the worst ground in London, both in terms of finding somewhere to park and in terms of getting away through the traffic afterwards. If you have to drive all the way, get there as early as you can manage and head for Weir Hall Road (look on Google maps or similar). The North end of this road is free and not too far a walk. Almost everywhere else is residents only, or maximum of an hour or so. I would strongly advise against using one of the carparks, such as the one on Tottenham High Road near the ground. Seriously, you''ll grow a beard waiting to get out afterwards. The advice earlier in this thread about parking on the way into London and getting a train is by far the most practical. Overground, the station is White Hart Lane. If you want to use the tube, you need to aim for Seven Sisters station on the Victoria Line. It''s two miles from the ground but a straight walk -- and good fun after NCFC have won.

I drive to Stamford Bridge regularly. You can park on streets off North End Road free after 6.30 and, for a youth game, I''d expect to be able to find spaces easily enough at the north end of North End Road (!), near its junction with the A4. There is also a pay car park at a hotel in Lillie Road. On first team match days you cannot drive near the ground, but I''d think you could get to the car park at Fulham Broadway station shopping mall on Monday. Give yourself plenty of time to get across London, of course. OTBC.

The definition of interfering with an opponent is also on page 104. It is too long to cite in full, but the key words are "preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball". Seb played the ball and so the opponent did not commit this definition of an offside offence. I know the commonsense definitions lead people (including Chris Hughton) to believe the player was offending because he was actively involved in play, but that is one of the frustrations for refs and others, that arguments and debates go on without pundits explaining the actual law, which has been like this since 2005.

The definition of interfering with play is set out on page 104 of the Laws booklet. It says: "interfering with play means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate". That is why linesmen sometimes seem to flag late. They are waiting for a player to touch the ball. The definition is complicated by the fact that linesmen are told, unofficially, to flag if one player is running forward from a clearly offside position on his own, and is clearly going for the ball. They are told to do this to save time and/or to prevent the striker clattering into the goalkeeper. But in the incident yesterday at Sunderland, the linesman (assistant) was correct not to flag. I don''t understand why MotD and other pundits don''t bother to look at the Laws and explain the interpretation which had been in place for all of FIFA since 2005.

I was at Spurs. First City game I''ve missed for yonks. Full marks to the Y''Army for making the trip for such an early start. I was there last year under Lambert when City folded without much resistance. Big, big point today

For the Bassong one, the player in an offside position did not commit the offence of offside. Since 2005, interfering with play means touching the ball and interfering with an opponent means preventing the opponent from either seeing or playing the ball. The Sunderland player did neither, so the Lino was correct not to flag.

Although all handballs have to be deliberate, the guidance to refs is that a player who "makes himself big" with his arms up or out is making a deliberate movement. So if the ball then hits his arm, it''s handball. I''m still not sure the ball hit any part of Bunny''s hand and I''m sure he didn''t want the ball to hit his arm. I''m equally sure Seb didn''t want the ball to roll along his arm after hitting his chest. But if both had been Sunderand players, I''d have wanted a red for the keeper and a pen for the second ''handball''. It doesn''t matter now, though. And we''ll win there next year, if they stay up.

To clear up some confusion: Bunn was sent off for denying a clear goal-scoring opportunity, for which the sanction is a one-game ban (v Wigan). To be guilty of that offence, a player has to commit an offence punishable by a direct free kick (or a penalty) which prevents an opponent from having an obvious chance to score. Foy thought Bunn handled outside his area. All handballs have to be deliberate. And, in other news, that was a huge point and we are staying up.

My wife and I bought seats and would have liked to sit (because of my great age and because standing in seats is neither sensible nor comfortable). But we were to the right of the first aisle (from our perspective) and, as everyone in Yellow to our right was standing, we wouldn''t have been able to see if we sat. There are times (Portaloo Road two seasons ago for instance) when you just have to stand because of the occasion. There are other times (Everton away this season) when it is not necessary. It''s no big deal for us, but it is for anyone with children. The Peterborough stewards were daft, though. They were telling us to sit down, but understood that we wouldn''t be able to see, so did not push the issue. If they had started in the aisle to the right of all the City fans, and told them to sit down, the rest of us would have done so. Yet they didn''t venture over there at all and just kept shrugging at each other. On a more general note about London Road, what an uncared for dump it has become. I worked at Mansfield on Sunday, and the three stands they had open were clean and well-maintained. The entrance to the away seats at London Road was like a ghost train: all ancient cobwebs, broken lighting and peeling paint.

I left the Sun in 1986.

The document from Norfolk Police produced for the inquiry was generated in June 1989. In other words, South Yorkshire Police asked Norfolk, "Did anything happen at your game that might help us now that 96 people have died and we''re getting the blame?" So the officer in charge of police the Carrow Road Game wrote a report. It did not say fans turned up late without tickets to force their way in. These are the relevant parts of the document “There was a significant crowd assembling outside Carrow Road by midday. Almost all were Liverpool supporters and the majority had tickets. "By 13.00 hours there was a considerable crowd gathered, a number of whom did not have tickets. Many said they were not aware it was an all-ticket match and others that they could not obtain tickets because they came from areas distant from Liverpool. "I decided therefore to open two turnstiles to sell returned tickets, after agreement with the club. "...... All the tickets were sold in this fashion and there is no doubt some home supporters benefitted in this way. "..... The visiting supporters were quite well behaved and formed orderly queues outside the ground. They did not arrive late and all supporters were inside the ground by 1500 hours.” In other words, they weren''t late, they all paid, and some of our fans did the same thing. You know someone who says there are people in Sheffield who keep believing it wasn''t their police or their ground that were the problem, it was those horrible Scousers. And you suggest that the inquiry panel had made up their mind in advance. You''d rather cling to what you have always believed. I give up. That''s it. You can talk among yourselves.

Why don''t we look at CCTV of the crowd at the Norwich game? Because there wasn''t any. This was 1989. There was rudimentary CCTV at Hillsborough: two tapes. They went missing from the locked police control room on the night of the tragedy. But the police did not have any intelligence, from the Norwich game or anywhere else, that fans had recently turned up late in order to try to get in free. We know this, because all their briefing papers were released to the inquiry. The agitation outside started at 2.40 -- 20 mins before kick-off, not outrageously late -- when it became clear to everyone that there weren''t enough turnstiles to process the numbers in time. The myth of fans turning up late, drunk, ticketless and determined to force their way in was created after the deaths. This is my last word on this thread but, come on guys, don''t base your beliefs (or worse, your actions) on stuff we were told 23 years ago but which have been comprehensibly investigated and disproved. If you can''t be bothered to read the report, just ask yourself why the police altered so many statements and then accept the report''s summary: the fans were not to blame. I hated the Suarez t-shirts and the Tom Adeyemi incident and have written about both. I was at The Sun at the time of Heysel, so don''t need telling about that either. But, at Hillsborough, 96 ordinary football fans died. It really, genuinely could have been us. They were the victims and it really wasn''t their fault. If we sing ''''that song'''', on Saturday or in subsequent seasons, we can''t shout ''but we don''t mean Hillsborough'' and so it will always be a deeply offensive and hideously nasty song. We are Norwich. We sing on our own often. We don''t need to recycle a Mancunian insult. OTBC

This is an example of what I mean. Read the report. There was room in several pens at the Liverpool end. The gates were opened and fans went down a slope from which there was only access to pens in which people were already being crushed. Opening the fences at the front would have saved folk. But they were left shut. Ambulances remained outside, unused. That night, the officer who had given the order to open the outside gate squad the fans had smashed it down. And so 23 years of lies began. I really don''t want to get into an argument about details because the inquiry looked at every document (except those which Wednesday''s linsurers refused to release) and the report comprehensibly explains inescapable conclusions.

I urge City fans to read the inquiry report, because some of the 23 year old myths that it quashed are repeated in this thread. But for the luck of the draw, Norwich would have been at Hillsborough that day, instead of at the other semi final. It really could have been us, our friends and relatives, who died, then were the subject of terrible lies and a cover up which went on for nearly a quarter of a century. Whatever other events "Always the victims" might refer to, to sing it two weeks after the inquiry report will be seen as a reference to the death of 96 ordinary football fans. And we can''t justify that by pointing to things that happened before or since that day in 1989. Let''s just sing in support of our team.

I was at Carrer Rud as a fan and the Madjeski for work this weekend. We''ll be in the division above Reading next season.

On the last day of the 06 summer window, Cameron Jerome had agreed to join us from Cardiff. So Leon McKenzie, who had sought a move, was allowed talk to Coventry. Jerome''s agent phoned to say that, actually, his man was going to Birmingham. The McKenzie deal was so far advanced that it went ahead. The window shut, leaving us short up front. Dion had been released by Celtic and joined us in the September. Worthy was sacked in the October, by which time Dion (who had missed the pre-season) hadn''t managed a full game for us -- but Jerome had been sent off in his first game for Brum and had managed only one League goal by then. I should really do some paid work now.

Nope. First of all, it''s nothing to do with the FA. They are a regulatory and governance body. They don''t facilitate anything for the Premier League or the Football League or their member clubs. Secondly, the market is international and massive, so a universities-style clearing house would be almost impossible to administer (and who is going to administer it and at what cost?). Thirdly, there are so many little imponderables. In City''s case, for instance. Do we keep Chris Martin if he does well tonight? That probably depends on whether we sign another striker ourselves. So we couldn''t put him into a clearing house scheme as available. (I have no inside information about our intentions about him, by the way). What has happened at our club is that the board have determined the maximum possible playing budget for the season -- wages, transfer fees etc -- in light of the fact that we must make the final, huge repayment of our outside debts on 1 May. Hughton has to work within that budget. He has thought about every player we have got, using data and dvds from last season plus what he has seen for himself. Then, together with Ewan Chester, he has identified areas which he wants to strengthen and players he wants to get in. At the same time, he has a list of players he is prepared to let go -- to keep within the budget and because of his assessment of them. Now, in the last few days of the window, tCity are waiting for the domino effect of what occurs at other clubs... If player A is signed by club Z, then will they let player Y go? etc. Once the window is closed, I expect some more of our chaps to be on their way out on loan to Football League clubs. And all the while, agents are trying to move their players on to get a cut of an improved deal. Agents talk to each other and to clubs all the time. Managers talk to each other all the time, and share information about what they have been told by other managers. It is a very complex, imperfect market. And never forget that the idea of two transfer windows was arbitrarily imposed by FIFA because of a misinterpretation of European law!!!! And never forget this either: we were freaking great on Saturday, I thought.

The haddock and chips was great. I paid. Thanks for the discretion, ncfcstar. It''s back in the cheap sets for the Scunthorpe game, though.